Ron Paul… A Second Look?
By Shaun Kenney | Thursday, August 18th, 2011 | PoliticsEric Odom over at Liberty Rocks touches a pretty raw nerve… namely being one of the many folks receptive to Ron Paul’s message, but finding himself unable to join the Revolution:
In fact, I’ve stepped back and forth across the line of liking/not liking Ron Paul for several years now. As a disclaimer, I voted for Ron Paul in the primary back in 2008. I then voted for Bob Barr in the general election. Let it be noted, though, that I voted in Illinois and did not for a second believe that if I had cast a vote for John McCain that Barack Obama might have lost Illinois, so my vote was more a protest vote at the time.
Since then I’ve backed away from Ron Paul over three key concerns.
- Ron Paul’s more hardcore supporters
- Ron Paul’s opinion of the middle east
- Ron Paul’s squishy stance on border security and illegal immigration
Let’s walk through them.
Odom then goes through each at a time, with the following prescriptions: (1) ignore the idiots, (2) unleash but don’t abandon the Israelis, and (3) Paul really isn’t all that bad on immigration.
Odom closes the argument with one that isn’t quite “change we can believe in” — but it’s awful darned close:
I’m in no way endorsing Ron Paul here, but I do want to provoke some deeper thinking into the matter for my fellow tea partiers who might share the same concerns I have. Because, to be honest, the 95% that Ron Paul has spot on is REALLY spot on.
Who else is seriously addressing the need to remove entire departments? Who else is seriously looking at taking about overwhelming power held by the Fed? Who else is serious about dismantling unsustainable power structures in Washington and returning power to the states?
I’m asking these questions with a very serious intent to find out. What other candidate is going to bring about serious change? Heck, while most of these candidates tinker around with talking points and flashy videos, they’ve got NOTHING new to say. Or at least, none of them are saying anything previous candidates haven’t already said.
Compelling argument. Frankly, there’s a lot of us who listen to Ron Paul, empathize with Ron Paul, want to believe in the Ron Paul Revolution… but are immediately turned off by Paul’s more errant (or fanatical) supporters, Paul’s seemingly Pollyannish foreign policy, and his fiesta on Rio Grande approach to immigration… which appears instead to be much closer to my own approach.
Is Odom right? Is Ron Paul the one man to “restore America”?
Truth be told… which presidential candidate is truly going to change more than the drapes in the White House?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
35 Responses to "Ron Paul… A Second Look?"
As someone who no doubt qualifies as one of Ron Paul’s “hardcore supporters,”, let me say a few things.
The road to my viewpoints is a long one. It begins with accepting what has become in America a very very radical notion:
I own myself.
Probably 80% of the rest of the things I say and write can be derived from that premise. I own myself, and I am willing to accept the responsibility that goes along with it.
This self-ownership accompanied by responsibility has a name: liberty. It’s actually shockingly simple to understand, yet oh so very “radical” in modern America. I take comfort in the knowledge that it wasn’t that long ago that everyone understood it. I’m in good company, even if so many of them are long dead.
If I own myself, then I own what I do, good or bad. No one else owns it, for better or worse. No one else is responsible for it. In return, I demand my right to be left alone. The purpose of government, in fact, is to enforce my right to live my life unmolested. In other words, government enforces my right to be left alone, it protects my liberty. I remember seeing that written somewhere…
I choose the purpose of my existence. I do not exist to serve others at their behest or whim. I am not a slave to any dependency class, no matter how their existence is legislated. The legislature has no authority to make me such a slave.
Free markets are just that: free. No bailouts, no TBTF. No government-sponsored enterprises. No managed economy. No central bank. Honest money whose value is not subject to the whim of some private banking cartel.
Radical?
Jamie, you’ve highlighted the problem many have with rabid Ron Paul supporters – paranoia.
Such supporters fail to realize how many people agree with them either entirely or substantially due to their paranoid nature, believing that everyone is after them, that there exists a vast conspiracy to stifle their message and squelch their voice.
Virtually everyone here adheres to the same philosophy of self-ownership as yourself. That’s not the problem. It’s not the views on Ron Paul supporters, it’s the behavior.
Said it over and over. The problem with Ron Paul is not Ron Paul.
If there is such a fiction as “self-ownership” can you sell yourself into slavery?
If not, why not?
I’ll repeat it over and over again: YOU CANNOT OWN YOURSELF. YOU DO NOT OWN YOURSELF. IT IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY TO BE A PROPERTY UNTO ONE SELF.
Locke was wrong, wrong, wrong on this… just as he was wrong, wrong, wrong on the idea that we bargain our rights away to government. This sort of ignorance is what blends the socialists with the objectivists, and it is a moral error that should be ruthelessly mocked and destroyed at every possible turn.
If there is such a fiction as “self-ownership” can you sell yourself into slavery?
If not, why not?
I’ll repeat it over and over again: YOU CANNOT OWN YOURSELF. YOU DO NOT OWN YOURSELF. IT IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY TO BE A PROPERTY UNTO ONE SELF.
Locke was wrong, wrong, wrong on this… just as he was wrong, wrong, wrong on the idea that we bargain our rights away to government. This sort of ignorance is what blends the socialists with the objectivists, and it is a moral error that should be ruthlessly mocked and destroyed at every possible turn.
Shaun,
I am interested in understanding your POV on self-ownership, why is it that you say that a person cannot own themselves ? Maybe I am just misunderstanding how you define the word “self” or “ownership”. To me that is essentially the same as self-possession, isn’t that what you mean by the words ? If so, how could you say that a person can’t be self-possessed ?
Temporary,
Let me chime in here. Self-ownership implies more than the rights and privileges of the individual. It implies self-reliance on the part of every individual to the point that social contracts are unnecessary and undesired. That is the anarchy of Libertarianism. If we want, as a tribe of human beings, to advance and elevate ourselves as a community and form a social order, then social contracts must be formed. Without them, then only the physically strongest and savage get to eat and procreate while the rest perish. And we find ourselves living in caves throwing rocks at each other.
Like pruning a tree, the problem arises in knowing when to stop. Liberalism takes social contracts to the extreme when there is no individual responsibility for or ownership of your existence. Society becomes the reason for your existence rather than your existence being the reason for society.
HisRoc,
That is a mischaracterization. Libertarianism isn’t the same thing as Anarchism, they are completely different things, Libertarianism is not the absence of government. You are coloring Classical Liberalism with a lot of negative assumptions such as survival of the fittest, etc, but those things do not naturally fall from Libertarianism anymore than they are a consequence of Statism. Libertarians choose limited government, they choose to enter into social contracts because they are not more unwise than anyone else, meaning that it doesn’t take adult human beings very long to figure out that working together is mutually beneficial. Libertarians just don’t believe that people should be compelled to enter into social contracts by force, among other things, or that Democracy (rule by numbers) should be allowed to take advantage of the individual just because it can. Libertarians are also no more prone to seek or abstain from warfare than anyone else, there are mean ones and happy ones!
It is true that self-possessed people are often very self-reliant, but that doesn’t mean they always choose to be. Independent people don’t suddenly cease to be self-possessed just because they want to purchase a twinkie at 7-11 instead of baking their own //grin//, and they don’t cease to be independent just because they choose to team up with other people to build a bridge. What Libertarians want is for everyone to be strong individuals, for everyone to be free, so that we can all be strong and free together.
What you are writing about isn’t Libertarianism, what you are writing about is the Democratic view of Libertarianism, which is something completely different.
Chris:
I see people wanting smaller government and more liberty, but I don’t see the recognition of the underlying reasons why it is ESSENTIAL, and I don’t yet see the willingness to embark on the truly fundamental changes needed to reinvigorate the American system. America’s success stems from voluntary cooperation in a private society, an ownership society where ownership means exactly that.
In American today, in a truly functional sense, we don’t own anything. We rent property from the government, we pay government for the privilege of earning a living. Can anyone argue the point? No. You will argue necessity. We live in a government-sponsored and government-enforced rentier society. I don’t like it.
Once established, arguments within this society become a mere bidding war about how much to take, with some minor side arguments about what to do with the spoils.
I am unwilling to subvert myself for some majority’s perception of some (redistributive or religion-based) greater good. I am rational enough to understand the need for social cooperation. But it is just that: cooperation. A voluntary society doesn’t use force to achieve virtually all of its aims. And how would one name a society that is NOT voluntary? History has names for such societies. You all know them.
Maybe I am misreading, but it seems that Shaun and HisRoc both decry my concept of self-ownership, but for exactly opposite reasons:
HisRoc, I believe, confuses classical small-l liberalism with the unrelated modern big-L market-socialist Liberalism: “Liberalism takes social contracts to the extreme when there is no individual responsibility for or ownership of your existence.”
Shaun, I believe, is defining my concept of self-ownership in the context of some philosophical argument with which I am unfamiliar: “YOU CANNOT OWN YOURSELF. YOU DO NOT OWN YOURSELF. IT IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY TO BE A PROPERTY UNTO ONE SELF. This sort of ignorance is what blends the socialists with the objectivists, and it is a moral error that should be ruthlessly mocked and destroyed at every possible turn.”
I have read some early Virginia history. I am well aware that forced organization was needed to prevent the early colony’s failure. But as the threats diminished, the force diminished as well. Once the threats had diminished and free enterprise took over, the colony flourished economically. Shall we always focus on the threats, or can we focus on the free enterprise?
HisRoc: you refer to the notion of “social contracts.” Use of the word “contract” invokes a specific meaning. Libertarians love contracts. Contracts are agreements to perform certain specified actions, voluntarily entered in to by equals under the law. The word “contract” implies obligation and, more importantly, enforceability. Any contract that is entered into under duress is void, under laws well established in the entirety of Western civilization.
So, where is this “social contract”? What does it say, and when did I sign it? Did I assent to it merely by being born? If you cannot point to it, and to my signature on it, then how can I follow it? What exactly does it say I am supposed to do? Submit and shut up? Is some malleable, ever-changing social contract enforceable? Do Constitutions matter anymore?
Is the right-left fight really about control of the words in this so-called “contract”?
I prefer a society organized around voluntary cooperation to one that is organized around force and where the main argument in the society revolves around how to use the force, and against whom.
A society built on fear constantly sees and preemptively attacks enemies the world over, declares never-ending war on itself, points its weapons inwards, and ultimately destroys itself.
I do not want to sign this “contract.”
As someone who’s NOT a supporter of Ron Paul, let me say that doesn’t mean that some of his ideas are not appealing.
I’ve said this before but it bears repeating, in the 2008 Republican debates I was continually impressed by Paul’s courage in raising an issue that was shouted down by the other GOP candidates and ignored by the moderators. I may be paraphrasing him a bit here, but he gist of it was “The United States was never meant to be an empire.”
This is not only self-evidently true, it’s something no other candidate in either party would have the guts to say.
The weight of empire rests heavily on a republic. The Romans lost the republic to hold the empire. With the growing power of the imperial presidency and the military/industrial complex – under both parties – we may soon face the same choice.
That said, I couldn’t support Paul because his economic ideas as simplistic and would destroy the country, although I suspect they are what most of his hard core supporters like best about him.
Dr Paul is the only candidate to consistently call out the fed for the ignoramus to ignore. The fed is mighty and has us by the b@!!$.. Until a full audit is forced upon it/them and the people get to see what they will not like, no other candidate will deserve much respect. Herman Cain was a former fed chief who saw the problems from within but I doubt he will call for a full blown top to bottom audit like RP has consistently called for. What is so intimidating about this for people who identify themselves as conservatives I fail to understand… Someone please enlighten me.
Thanks Turbo, you just told me something I didn’t know about Herman Cain. He was the chief of the Kansas Federal Reserve Bank though. If you just say “fed chief” that sounds like he had Greenspan’s job.
Jamie,
You seem to place great stock in the parsing of phrases. Okay, try this. When did you sign the social contract that prohibits you from killing someone simply because they annoy you? You didn’t? Does that mean that you are not bound and obligated by our criminal code?
First, I OWN MY SELF! I enjoy individual soveriegnty that you can’t encroach on unless I do the encroaching first. Why? Because God created me with free will and natural rights. The atheists out there can argue the same and just call on the simple fact that they exist entitles them to self ownership and rights as an individual sovereign. What is “self-evident” is that we are all created as equals. See our founding documents and do the easy math. Equal.
Secondly, Temporary did pretty well in his reply.
Libertarians SEE A NEED FOR. GOVERNMENT. This excludes the anarchist wing which I disagree with but share many other common views.
Mainstream libertarianism holds that the purpose of government is to:
1. Protect the individual from force(violence, theft, etc)
2. Protect the individual from fraud. (ENFORCING CONTRACTS IS A PART OF THAT- libertarians do love contracts)
3. Perhaps provide some basic infrastructure
For Steve:
I like Paul’s views on liberty, basic tenants of what he says is his view on foreign policy, but I think some things as being unrealistic and complicated by tyrants and terrorists willingness to wreak carnage – Bush & Obama both went way too far, yes- I love his economic policy you label *cough* simplistic and would lol, ruin the country. Yea, Steve, because without Ron Paul’s policies we have what? A credit downgrade, economic turmoil, possible multiple recession dipping or worse, unemployment rates dwarfing those of Bush’s terms, way to many people on food stamps, a currency on the brink of collapse, over 14 trillion in debt, states and localities going bankrupt and 3 ongoing wars!!!
Yes keep defending Obama. Yes, Republicans, you keep defending Bush. This is the bed THEY MADE. In view of what they gave us, I would be willing to give Ron Paul a chance. Or someone like him.
HisRoc has touched on the very nature of where “self-reliance” often leads. Inevitably, man cannot be self-reliant and move beyond subsistence. Social contracts, implied or otherwise, naturally occur the moment one person meets another and engages in contact.
This was not only understood by Thomas Paine in Common Sense, it was understood by Aristotle in On Politics.
HisRoc is additionally right as socialism (I refuse to give them “liberalism” as a moniker) consumes the liberties of the individual to the benefit of the collective… or more accurately, those who run the collective. As the free market has consistently shown, collectivism routinely injures freedom, restricts economic progress, denies the rights of property, and utterly underperforms at every turn.
This begs the question: Does government — at any time — have the right to deny you the liberties you enjoy as a human being? The answer is not just no, but NEVER.
This is where that delicate balance of liberty between the twin vices of tyranny (too much government) and license (too little government) comes into play. Needless to say, socialism and anarchists play into one extreme or the other…
With regards to the error of “self-ownership” — this is the trap that John Locke wittingly falls into, but cannot escape.
Can one own themselves?
Locke argues yes.
Can one sell themselves into slavery?
Locke argues this as an impossibility.
How then, does one interact with one’s government?
By social contract?
What then happens to one’s liberties?
Locke argues (and in my strongly held opinion, in error) that one surrenders rights to government as part of the social contract — chapters 9 and 10 of the Second Treatise.
Let’s make it worse. Locke goes further in arguing that one’s rights may be stripped away not just by one’s own consent… but rather can be stripped away by the will of the majority (section 140). Locke argues further that one gives up their freedom to participate in governance (section 131) and further still that the boundaries for the surrender of these rights — your rights — are bound to “the common good” of the polity.
Locke goes still further! Locke argues that the state undoubtedly has this power to strip you of your rights… provided it does not do so “arbitrarily” (section 138).
Locke’s defense for this? The social contract, as expressed by his predecessor — Thomas Hobbes and the Leviathan state.
So much for the concept of “self ownership”… because what it does is reduce (1) the human person to a commodity, (2) creates the fiction that one can exist outside of a polity, and (3) rejects the basic human rights embraced by Locke — who then inexplicably rejects them — Bastiat, Aquinas, and others.
Rights are not to be abrogated by a commonwealth. Governments are constituted to protect the rights of the people who are sovereign. At no point in time does a human being resign his rights to their government — rather, the government and the polity (and the common weal) bind themselves to the protection of those rights in common, for the common good, for the protection of those rights.
Here’s the other addition as well, something even Hobbes recognized (and later, Nozick), and it is this: liberty increases in a polity. For instance, we’re tapping away at the Internet right now. Most all of us do not worry about going hungry tonight. We have shelter, we are safe from enemy attack, our properties are well policed and safe from predators, we own books and televisions, we are free to pursue educational pursuits, etc.
All of these things build culture. None of them would be possible without government. Yet indeed, specialization of self-reliant individuals creates the presupposed dichotomy of both dependency and liberty ONLY if one believes in this mythical concept of self-ownership. RATHER, if liberty is the balance between tyranny and licence, and further if liberty is the right to do as we ought, then the proper role of both human rights and governance becomes much more clear.
This is liberty. To reject the rights of the individual is the road to serfdom. To reject the role of the state to protect rights is the road to anarchy.
http://bearingdrift.com/2011/02/20/why-you-dont-own-yourself/
Rather, human beings are beyond ownership. You do not own yourself as you would a cow, a bike, or a chair — because you are a rational actor.
You could no more sell yourself as you would a cow, a bike, or a chair — precisely because you are a rational actor:
This is the hammer and anvil. 21st century Randian ideas of “self ownership” simply don’t wash. They don’t work. They never have. Tom Paine rejected them, Locke rejected them (though he could not resolve the problem without resorting to Hobbesian ethics), Aquinas rejected them, Grotius rejected them, Jefferson rejected them, the Founding Fathers rejected them, the whole of the property rights movement rejected them.
Objectivist ethics are neither objective nor ethical when weighed in the balance.
You do not own yourself, because you are of such value that you are incapable of being owned, even by yourself.
HisRoc, because we are all created equals and all have an individual sovereignty and own themselves, Jamie Jacoby can’t murder those that annoy him. He violates an inherent right by doing that.
When the farmer, the fisherman, the builder, etc got together to benefit mutually from commerce specialization, economies of scale, etc, they needed govt to assure fair exchange (prevent fraud) and engage in said commerce without fear of violence or theft etc. (Force), you can understand the concepts of individual rights and the proper role government should play.
He may answer that question differently, so he can also speak for himself.
Yes, Shaun, that was one of your worst of articles. You totally don’t understand Randians, objectivists, or self-ownership. I remember that article all to well.
Again, you own yourself. No you can’t sell your self, only offer service for inequitable payment. Only because you can’t seperate yourself from yourself. If you don’t own yourself, who does, Shaun. And I mean in a worldly sense. To reply with “God” which I agree with in an overall sense. That answer would be a cop out and evasion. On a good deal of your natural rights views I agree. Some of your stuff on that is fantastic. The fact that Locke is wrong on some things does not negate that he is right about self-ownership. Self-ownership as a concept rejects the idea that your natural rights can be taken. I don’t see any good justification for you to be objecting so strongly to the concept of self ownership.
But ***why*** does he violate this “inherent” right?
Why is it inherent?
How is it violated?
Why should I respect someone else’s “rights” at all?
Can’t I just take those away?
Can’t “might make right” and let’s murder some people?
Let’s walk through the circular reasoning and the logical pitfalls here… or else I call categorical imperatives on this whole “self ownership” business.
All this above is what Locke struggled with… and his only answer was that rights may indeed be stripped away by majority consent.
Now, does anyone here agree with that definition of “self ownership” at all? I certainly do not…
Shaun,
I need to read your post a few more times to get up to speed, I know you have a good point in there but I need to read up on Locke a bit to fully understand what you are writing.
That said, I think I see where you are coming from when you infer that people can’t sell themselves into slavery, but I would disagree. Self-possessed people can do worse than sell themselves into slavery, they can even disregard the value of their own lives. In fact many traditions around the world have this not only as a possibility but as a necessity for self-possession, with the belief being that if you cannot accept the possibility of your own death then threat of death can be used by anyone to control you.
One of the more poetic narratives that illustrates this point actually speaks to both points at once, a Samurai’s self imposed servitude to his master and his willingness to disregard his own life to see it through. Here is some text that speaks to the second point, but the book has even more to say about servitude.
From Yamamoto Tsunetomo’s Hagakure:
The folks might be special snowflakes, but I think they would have disagreed with the statement “Rights may indeed be stripped away by majority consent.”
Isn’t it pretty obvious that we give up rights that we would have in nature when we form societies?
In some cases we give them up to the society.
The right to take revenge on those who have injured us, for example. We give that over to the state and call it “law enforcement” and “justice.”
As to the majority being able to take away our rights, whether you believe they should be able to or not, the fact is that they can and our courts have ruled that’s acceptable. Otherwise there would be no zoning laws.
The idea of the sovereign individual really makes no sense in a society that is bound by laws. And our is supposed to be a government of laws, not of men.
Oh, and Britt: I didn’t defend Obama. I criticized Paul. One has nothing to do with the other.
@Temporary –
I would only argue in response that in death, my rights are not taken away. In fact, I would argue that in death, one fulfills one’s life — for good or ill.
I would have a hard time calling that the fulfillment of self-ownership. Sounds more like cheating when you call your chips in before the game is over…
Test.
Working!
Hisroc: “When did you sign the social contract that prohibits you from killing someone simply because they annoy you?”
Before I answer further, I have to know this: Is that what you mean by the social contract? The entire body of existing laws? Or is there some moral context?
Steve: “The idea of the sovereign individual really makes no sense in a society that is bound by laws. And our is supposed to be a government of laws, not of men.”
It makes perfect sense, if the purpose of the government is to protect the rights of the individual, and if the laws are written to serve that worthy goal. We are supposed to have a government of laws, but a society of citizens. The government does not define the society, the citizens do. Being the agent of the citizenry, the government serves the citizens, and not vice-versa. If the purpose of the government is to safeguard the rights of the individual, it makes perfect sense that individuals are supreme in the arrangement. I exist to serve my own ends, not the ends of others. Government exists to protect me from the force and fraud of others, and to protect others from force and fraud I may perpetrate.
If, rather, the purpose of the government is continuity of government (and pillaging the sheep), then all “people” are subjects and not citizens. I think it is fairly well understood that the purpose of the federal government was supposed to be the protection of individual rights. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”
“Isn’t it pretty obvious that we give up rights that we would have in nature when we form societies?”
I don’t think we “give them up.” I think we lend them to the government to act in our behalf, and I believe we can reclaim them if the government fails to use them appropriately. Virginia’s ratification of the Constitution includes a clause that specifically states that she can withdraw and reclaim the power she granted to the federal entity. This notion of (re)claiming rights is also deeply entrenched in the Declaration of Independence.
I’m not an anarchist. There are far far too many areas of human activity that are regulated, taxed, banned, licensed, or otherwise restricted. It has become easier and safer to do nothing than to “boldly go.” There are direct and severe economic repercussions for this. There will be no “recovery” until these problems are addressed head on.
All: Say what you want about Rand; her vision in “Atlas Shrugged” of the end of a productive society is playing out right in front of our eyes.
Jamie,
Both. Our Founding Fathers were followers of the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment. In their view, the laws of men are only valid when they are compatible with the moral imperatives of enlightened people who believe in a Divine Providence. The laws of man cannot contravene the moral dictates of the Creator.
BTW, that is why that whole slavery question was such a sticking point for the Constitutional Convention.
Slavery (enforced) is a violation of individual liberty a violation of their inherent natural rights. Slavery is wrong morally, from a view of natural rights, and counter to our founding documents. “We hold these truths to be self-evident”, they violated what they fought for in that regard.
I answered why it is inherent. God created or as some believe simply because we exist. There is also the logical desire for a level playing field and preventing predatory practices while engaging in commerce or life in general. We are created as legal equals.
You shouldn’t violate anothers rights from a moral, religious, and a standpoint of self preservation. Who knows when the “might” that made you “right” might turn on you. Who then protects you?
Certain rights are unalienable. You do not surrender. Yes there is zoning and takings. Even then, it is to be for sufficient cause AND COMPENSATED!
I strongly disagree that your rights can be stripped by tyranny of the majority. With tyranny of the majority or a true democracy, you CAN be voted into slavery unjustly. You could be different skin color, religion, any scapegoat the predatory majority sees to pursue. Live by the sword…..die by the sword.
For Steve: point taken on Obama.
HisRoc:
“When did you sign the social contract that prohibits you from killing someone simply because they annoy you? You didn’t? Does that mean that you are not bound and obligated by our criminal code?”
Bound by it? Which is more important: my compliance out of fear of getting caught, or my compliance out of enlightened self-interest? Any moral man can live his life in a just manner simply by following his inner compass. It has been estimated that that same man commits 10 or more serious regulatory crimes per day, all while injuring no one, stealing from no one, defrauding no one. But, crimes nonetheless.
When you’re driving down the interstate and you suddenly see a radar cop in the median, what’s the first thing you do? You look at your speedometer to see how fast you were going. Why? Because that average man doesn’t drive down the road staring at his speedometer (if he did, people would die), he drives based on his perception of conditions and traffic. But, based on pure chance, he might be about to be relieved of money by the “social contract.”
My point is simple: everyone has something they think I should be doing. Everyone has something they believe should be the top priority for my attention, and which should be correct and in compliance all of the time. But only the “social contract” points a gun at me. I don’t like it.
Wanna build something? Get permission. Wanna exercise a Constitutional Right? Get permission, pay a fee. Wanna open a business? Get permission from nearly a dozen, or in many cases more, local, state and federal agencies, file regular reports, pay pay pay. Wanna dig a hole in the ground? Get permission, pay a fee. Wanna “drive” a private conveyance? Get permission, pay several fees. Go to a restaurant? Pay tax. Earn a living? Get permission, pay tax. Invest in a wealth-producing enterprise? Pay tax. Have a telephone? Pay multiple taxes. Own property? Pay never-ending tax, or see it seized.
Google “Everything I want to do is illegal.” There’s your social contract. Am I “bound ” by it? Mao: “All political power flows from the muzzle of a rifle.” The social contract is a choke-hold.
Wanna know why the economy is in the dumper? It’s much easier and safer to do nothing.
Tom WOods:
“At the Mises Institute we are not keen on the term (or the concept) ‘public policy.’ According to Lew Rockwell, the Institute’s founder, ‘Among the greatest failures of the free-market intellectual movement has been to allow its ideas to be categorized as a ‘public policy’ option. The formulation implies a concession that it is up to the state – its managers and kept intellectuals – to decide how, when, and where freedom is to be permitted. It further implies that the purpose of freedom, private ownership, and market incentives is the superior management of society, that is, to allow the current regime to operate more efficiently.”
“In other words, the very notion of ‘public policy’ assumes that people’s lives and property are to be disposed of by the political class in pursuit of the goals of that class. This we reject on moral (and economic) grounds.”
Jamie,
Thank you for demonstrating my point. A free and democratic society is one in which the members willingly accept a social contract that establishes the minimum rules for the community to co-exist, rules based on moral principles. When the social contract expands to the point of socialism (or modern liberalism), then individual freedoms and property rights are subjugated to some supposed “greater community good.” Wealth is confiscated for redistribution, property is subjected to forfeiture-inducing taxation, and the people become the servants of government rather than being served by government. All at the expense of the individual.
My problem with Libertarianism is that it would roll back the social contract to the point of “anything goes, the strongest take whatever they want.” That is not democracy; that is feudalism.
Which brings me to my favorite subject, one that drives many of the BD contributors up a wall: term limits. Term limits prevent the government from becoming the career domain of an entrenched political class. They are not anti-democratic but, instead, promote democracy by creating a natural rotation of legislative and executive office-holders. Unrestricted office terms are anti-democratic and promote increased government interference in the natural and moral social contract.
HisRoc, where do you get this “anything goes” and the strongest take what they want as Libertarianism? Yes, there is the recent growth of the anarchist philosophy, but I belive the majority of libertarians are not anarchists. I am not. I believe in a role for government. “Anything” wouldn’t go. Maybe more victimless “crimes” than you would like perhaps. Even the anarchists have their mechanism for maintaing the peace. I would agree however, that THAT probably would learn to warlords etc, human nature being what it is. Just look at what the establishment of both parties is capable of doing to the country!
And who wants Democracy? I would rather have a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives. Of course, to have that, you must follow the constitution you established.
Libertarianism is not feudalism. “Might makes right” violates libertarian principles. We cherish individual protections.
Britt,
“And who wants Democracy? I would rather have a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives.”
What you have described is commonly referred to in Political Science as an Oligarchy, with the “democratically” elected representatives being chosen by the power elites. No thank you. We are perilously close to that today, thanks to our two-party system.
Tell me, is stock manipulation and insider trading one of the Libertarians’ “victimless crimes?” How about practicing a profession such as medicine, law, or accounting without a government-issued license? And should public education, to include universities, be publicly funded or left to private enterprise? How about transportation infrastructure such as limited access highways, rail, and airports? Those are some of the issues that differentiate conservatives from libertarians.
@HisRoc –
Term limits? Sign me up. No successive terms… just as Jefferson established.
Leave your response